Sugarcoated interview with an IDW editor who's an SJW, and has quite a double standard

Brands Untapped interviewed Heather Antos, a SJW who worked at Marvel as an editor in the past decade and was instrumental in damaging their output the woke way, and now is working at IDW, where she serves as editor on some very eyebrow raising imprints:

Heather Antos, you’ve described yourself as “taller in person, a destroyer of childhoods and a professional geek.” How tall are you?

Ha! I’m 5’10”, which is short in my family.

Is it? Gosh! And ‘destroyer of childhoods we’ll find out more about… Professional geek – lets get into that. What’s your actual job title?

I’m the Senior Group Editor at IDW Publishing. I oversee our crime imprint – which is pretty self-explanatory – and all things IDW Dark; our horror imprint.

Great remit! What kind of things does IDW Dark involve?

That involves our licensed partnerships with Paramount – Event Horizon, Twilight Zone, A Quiet Place, Smile, Sleepy Hollow. It also involves some of our historic, original creator-owned horror titles: 30 Days of Night, Locke & Key, Beneath the Trees Where Nobody Sees, The Exorcism at 1600 Penn. Over its 26 years, IDW has really made a name for itself as being a home of horror in the comic space.

Very interesting. She had a sex-negative viewpoint when she worked at Marvel - with the biggest irony being her claim of alleged admiration for Flo Steinberg, who served as one of the editors on the Marvel Swimsuit specials - yet years later at IDW, all of a sudden, Antos is quite comfortable working on stories involving violent content, horror and darkness? That she'd boast about being a "destroyer of childhoods" is certainly sad as it's insulting, because that's what she was doing at Marvel, if anywhere, and perhaps also at neo-Valiant.

Hell in space… Tell me if I’m wrong here: my memory is that they filmed a lot more foootage for the Event Horizon movie that got cut because it was too horrific. Are you, in a comic, better positioned to explore the extreme edges of that?

Yes and no. I mean, ratings still exist – so what we’re allowed to show in a comic book still matters. We can’t go too extreme or else the comic itself would need to be polybagged to stop a kid picking it up and chancing across it. So ratings still matter. Also, for licenses like Event Horizon, A Quiet Place, Smile and so on, I’m very aware that those are Paramount franchises. So what we did has to match that brand…

So to your earlier point, about stuff filmed for Event Horizon that you can’t watch today, we can’t exceed that level in the comics That’s the brand! Another example is A Quiet Place… Those films are rated PG-13, so the comics themselves need to match that in terms of language, gore, the types of scares we’re allowed to do and so on. Meanwhile, Smile is rated R – so we can go a little further.

Again, this is quite telling when somebody who had a sex-negative viewpoint at one publisher is perfectly fine working with R-rated mayhem at another. Interesting how she actually brings up concern for what children might stumble over if they picked up a comic with mature themes, which, despite the perception comics aren't read by children today, could happen. But her double-standard on sex as opposed to violence ruins whatever points she's trying to make.

I’m loving this! You were at Marvel before IDW, were you not? What were you working on there?

When the Star Wars line launched in 2015, I helped do that with Jason Aaron, John Cassaday, Kieron Gillen, Salvador Larroca, Mark Waid, Terry Dodson… That was the big, big, BIG launch; around the time that Force Awakens was coming out. I also worked on the Deadpool line around the time that movie was came out. And I co-created the character Gweenpool for Marvel while I was there as well.

And Aaron was one of the biggest SJWs they hired at the time. One could say Gillen was too, considering he wrote the storyline where Tony Stark's background was retconned so he was an adopted orphan instead of having biological parents. And seriously, Antos co-created Gwenpool? Well I'm not impressed with that either. And did she ever apologize to Jae Lee for accusing him of being a Comicsgate supporter? If she ever did, I have yet to find out. Antos later says:

So you can imagine when I learned about comics in my university years, it was just such a cool thing! To know that a group of people got to collaborate together on these projects – and that it wasn’t just superhero stuff! Because, obviously, I grew up with the same superhero TV shows and movies and all the stuff that everyone else did. But when I was in college, I took an American literature course and studied a lot of the classic Vertigo stuff.

Such as?

Oh, I was introduced to The Sandman and Transmetropolitan and Hellblazer and a lot of that material. And I was surprised to find that comics can be horror, they can be crime. They can be so many things away from what most people might assume comics are. [...]

Wonder what she thinks now that the author of the former title was accused of sexual abuse? Or that the author of Transmetropolitan was accused of taking advantage of a number of women by making empty promises he'd help them get jobs in the industry? That she sounds like she's still okay with reading those items can be telling too of where she really stands. Near the end of the interview:

Amazing. I have one last question to wrap things up, Heather… Are there any dream licenses that you’d love to work on?

Oh, there are a couple I’ll happily talk about because I’ve been very vocal about them online! First, I absolutely love Indiana Jones – it’s one of my first loves. Obviously, it’s with Disney, which is in the Marvel wheelhouse so if anything was ever going to happen with Indy, that would be where it would happen. Then, my other love – again, I’m so loud about this online – is James Bond… I absolutely love James Bond, and I don’t think the franchise has had the comic run it deserves.

If she had her way, it definitely wouldn't. As for Indy, wonder what she thinks of how the series was screwed up and totally buried by political correctness? Probably nothing much, alas.

It's interesting to note that a few years ago, according to That Park Place, Antos accused her previous employers at Marvel and Valiant of unfair treatment, suggesting she now holds a grudge against them for discontinuing her employment. Why she got a job with IDW next is mystifying, though her willingness to serve as editor of dark titles does speak volumes. At the same time, the site notes that, based on what they found being told in her business profile:

She has no other job experience aside from being an independent editor and story consultant, which she claims to have been doing since 2016.

So why'd IDW want to hire her? Considering they could be on their last legs now finance-wise, it hardly helps to employ somebody whose "talent" is very unclear. In the past decade, she did little more than work as a SJW, and this only suggests she hasn't changed. Anybody who's going to take the kind of double-standard she does is only making clear why they weren't suited to work in comicdom to begin with. Whatever she's overseeing at IDW doesn't sound appealing, and with her as one of the editors, that's why it's best not to buy what're bound to be overrated horror and crime tales anyway.

A special event for art students at a Massachussettes library

The Greenfield Recorder covered a special project aimed at encouraging children to illustrate comics at a Sunderland library:

For many young readers, comics are a gateway into storytelling. From Monday, June 22, to Friday, June 26, the Sunderland Public Library is helping children take the next step from reading comics to creating their own.

Through a week of comics programming organized in partnership with the Boston Comics Arts Foundation (BCAF), local students will learn directly from professional cartoonists while exploring the fundamentals of visual storytelling. The program features award-winning graphic novelists Jarrett J. Krosoczka and Mike Curato, who will share their experiences as creators and encourage young artists to develop their own voices.

According to Deanna Soukiasian, cartoonist and education coordinator for the Boston Comics Arts Foundation’s Mass Makes Comics initiative, the program grew from a desire to make comics education accessible to more communities.

“In the community, there’s a growing desire for kids to learn visual literacy,” Soukiasian said. “Comics are for everybody, and learning is for everybody.”

Mass Makes Comics focuses on bringing educational opportunities to underfunded communities throughout Massachusetts. By partnering with libraries, artists and families, the organization works to ensure that students who are interested in comics have access to professional instruction regardless of their background.

Well that's great they want to encourage students to try their luck in illustration. But, I hope they recognize the vitality of being a talented artist and writer too, otherwise, how does an aspiring creator expect anybody to read his or her productions? It's also worth considering that if you inject heavy-handed leftist ideology into your work, that too could discourage potential audiences. Provided all involved are willing to consider that, their project and convention should work out well enough.

Why is Absolute Batman so "addictive" to certain mainstream apologists?

Here's a writer at Dread Central who's telling why he allegedly finds Absolute Batman so "addictive":

As most of you regular readers know by now, I’m pretty obsessed with DC‘s record-breaking Absolute Batman. Not because it’s Batman. Not because it’s selling a ridiculous number of copies. Not because every issue seems to create another key appearance or first cameo for collectors to chase. I’m obsessed with it because after more than eighty years of Batman stories, writer Scott Snyder and artist Nick Dragotta somehow found a way to make the character feel new again.

The easiest explanation is Bruce Wayne himself. For decades, Batman has largely been defined by wealth. He was the billionaire who used unlimited resources to wage war on crime, and while that fantasy worked when I was younger, it feels increasingly disconnected from the world we live in now. The idea of a billionaire using his power and influence for good sounds nice, but it’s also become much harder to relate to. This version of Bruce Wayne changes that. He’s blue collar. He’s working class. He isn’t standing above Gotham looking down at its problems. He’s living inside them. He’s a product of the same broken system that created Gotham’s corruption, and he’s fighting back against it.

I'd noticed this stupid defense put to use before, and if there's anything it certainly fails to recognize, it's that there's also such a thing as wish fulfilment. Of course, the same people who apparently don't want Wayne to be a millionaire also don't want Spider-Man to be either, and no doubt, they don't even want Tony Stark to be wealthy. Why, now that I think of it, Matt Murdock as Daredevil was close to being wealthy, if only because for many years, he'd been depicted as well off enough to afford a townhouse with roof window through which he could go out to do acrobatics on his way to patrol as Hornhead. And I guess that's not acceptable to the modern SJW either, because it's all too close to being like Donald Trump, huh? I hesitate to think what they'd say about a woman being wealthy, and IIRC, Vixen's been characterized as such. What would or will they say about a heroine like her being rich?

But the more I’ve thought about Absolute Batman, the more I’ve realized Bruce Wayne is only the entry point. He’s what initially grabs you, but he’s not why you keep coming back month after month. The real magic is the world that Snyder and Dragotta are building around him, and it’s unlike anything I’ve seen in mainstream superhero comics in a very long time.

I miss the part here about merit. Even in later paragraphs, it's not clear that's what they're selling this on. It still sounds more like they're selling it on the alternate universe theme alone, along with darkness. Which is actually what's been the norm for a long time now, and if there's something that hasn't received much emphasis for years now, it's a world that's bright and optimistic, like the Fantastic Four's. So what's the writer lecturing us about anyway?

The book never sits in one place too long. It’ll give you Batman smashing someone’s face through a wall and then immediately cut to Bruce lying in his mother’s arms. It’ll introduce a major villain, answer a question that’s been hanging over the series for months, tease three new mysteries, and somehow still find time for character development. The story is constantly shifting between action, horror, mythology, mystery, and emotional drama without ever feeling bloated or unfocused. [...]

What’s remarkable is that the speed never comes at the expense of character. The same issue can swing from “really bombastic, gross, or insane action,” as Dragotta describes it, directly into deeply personal moments that remind readers why they care about these characters in the first place.

In fact, Dragotta specifically points to those quieter moments as being equally important to the series’ success. While discussing scenes involving Bruce and his mother, he explained how the goal is to create emotional recognition in the reader. “Little Bruce cuddling up to his mom and having a reader goes, yeah, that’s how I used to cuddle with my mom.”

Gee, what's being told here that couldn't be told in similar ways in the flagship comics proper? Also, despite what the columnist says, it's doubtful they made this genuinely character based. Either way, here's the stunning part that could be applied to thousands of other comics, mainstream or otherwise:

That’s the part I think most people miss when they talk about Absolute Batman.

People focus on the oversized Batman. They focus on the action. They focus on the redesigns and the shocking reveals. What makes the book special is that it never loses sight of the people underneath all of it. For every giant action sequence, there’s a character moment. For every revelation about Gotham, there’s a revelation about Bruce. The spectacle gets readers talking, but the emotional core is what keeps them invested.

The closest comparison I can make isn’t another comic. It’s prestige television. Absolute Batman doesn’t feel like a monthly comic book. It feels like a serialized series that expects you to keep up. It expects you to remember details from ten issues ago. It expects you to connect the dots. It expects you to pay attention. Most importantly, it respects the reader enough not to explain everything twice.

Sounds like he's saying it's similar to a movie, which reminds me of the time when author Sean Howe said 14 years ago that if you make the comic look more like a movie, it's a recipe for failure. Doesn't that ever occur to these media phonies? That the horror genre gets such an emphasis here also isn't encouraging, nor is the talk of "gross". How can you get emotionally invested with that kind of nasty theme running amok any more than the divisive political metaphors?

At some point, the magic usually disappears. A creator loses focus. The mythology becomes bloated. Editorial gets involved. The story starts spinning its wheels. I’ve watched it happen for most of my life. So every month when a new issue of Absolute Batman arrives, I find myself staring at it for hours before opening it.

This is getting silly now, despite how some interesting points are made on how and why storytelling goes wrong. If he's going to merely stare for hours at the book he's received, he makes himself sound like a nut. And what good does it do to bring up editorial mandates when the same writers make no attempt to complain that kind of "oversight" has to stop? Or that talent matters and can't be sabotaged by said mandates? Replacing the flagship comics with alternate universe lines doesn't improve anything. It's only defeatist, especially when the excuse is to push more political metaphors that even the mainstream lines aren't immune to. And now, they actually reveal one of the story's most eyebrow raising setups:

One of the biggest developments in the issue revolves around Bruce’s growing realization that his father’s death may not have been random at all. The implication that Scarecrow was involved changes everything, but what impressed me wasn’t the twist itself. It was the realization that evidence of this has been sitting in the series from the very beginning. This wasn’t a surprise invented halfway through the run. It feels planned. It feels intentional. It feels like another example of Snyder and Dragotta trusting that readers are paying attention.

Then comes the skyscraper scene.

Bruce is standing on the ledge of a skyscraper (that he’s building as part of his day job) when his boss arrives with a group of investors. Another figure steps onto the ledge beside him.

It’s Joker.

And for a moment, everything stops.

Not just the story. Everything.

The issue stops. The room stops. The entire universe seems to stop.

Because this isn’t just a character reveal. This is the moment where the mythology expands again. This version of Joker isn’t simply another criminal. He’s a billionaire. A manipulator. A puppet master. A man who increasingly appears to be sitting above Gotham itself, quietly pulling strings from the shadows.

Then comes the bombshell.

He tells Bruce that he made him.

That Scarecrow killing his father wasn’t random.

That Batman isn’t some outside force pushing back against Gotham’s corruption.

He’s a product of it.

He’s another piece on the board.

What makes the scene work isn’t the shock value. It’s the relationship being established between the two of them. The suggestion that they need each other. That neither can fully exist without the other. It’s one of the oldest themes in Batman mythology, yet somehow this version feels fresh. More importantly, it feels earned because the series has spent 21 issues laying track for moments exactly like this.

This doesn't sound appealing. It just sounds stupid. As for the part about a wealthy villain, that's already been noted for some time now, that this comic's take on the Clown Prince of Crime is more like an allusion to Donald Trump. And when it's told Batman was a production of corruption, I'm sorry, but that's only insulting to the intellect, and does nothing to build confidence in the story putting emphasis on a dedicated crimefighter. If this kind of premise were applied to Spider-Man, it wouldn't work there either. What's more, that whole notion the hero and villain literally "need each other" is insulting to the intellect, and reeks of moral equivalence. Seriously, do we need villains as horrific as the Joker is usually characterized as? Of course not. One sure thing: a villain that awful should not be considered more valuable than a hero.

I trust Scott Snyder and Nick Dragotta to keep building. I trust them not to waste my time. I trust them not to hit the reset button. I trust them because 21 issues in, they’ve earned it.

Forget it. Snyder didn't do anything worthwhile for Batman when he first wrote the flagship series 15 years ago, And the Absolute line only reeks of pretension. Not to mention that the whole notion hero and villain "need each other" is irritating, and quite possibly one of the biggest problems in marketing and storytelling that brought down Batman as much as Superman years before.

Live action MOTU movie continued to drop in sales

So 2 weeks into its debut, the new Masters of the Universe live action movie still plummeted in sales, as Variety reported:

“Masters of the Universe,” on the other hand, will have a harder time justifying its mega price tag. The sword-and-planet adventure dropped to No. 5 with $8.6 million from 3,677 locations. It has earned just $45.7 million in North America and $84 million worldwide and, against a nearly $200 million production budget, will leave theaters as one of the year’s biggest bombs. “Masters of the Universe” is based on the ’80s Mattel toy and cartoon, and this kind of turnout suggests the movie isn’t expanding beyond the core fanbase of older males.

Which won't include me. Why, who knows if a lot of what they perceive as a fanbase even bothered attending? Obviously, some did, but it would be silly to assume virtually all did unquestioned. This kind of popcorn fare is really no big deal, and some people who played with the toys in the 80s doubtlessly outgrew that kind of stuff long ago. If the film's story does little to prove itself worth watching no matter what age group it's supposedly aimed at, then it's not hard to guess that's another reason why even veteran toy players and cartoon watchers are uninterested.

Now, with that told, there's a certain something else I've learned about the movie from this BBC report that's decidedly troubling, and makes it additionally hard to care it's collapsed financially:

A schoolgirl said it was "great fun" to be "punched" in the stomach by Sir Idris Elba while filming for a Hollywood movie.

At 13, Delilah O'Riordan worked with Tom Hanks in Here (2024). A year later, classmates at her school in Brentwood, Essex, were shocked to see her face on the big screen yet again.

A live action remake of the 1980s cartoon, Masters of the Universe, hit UK cinemas on 5 May.

"My scene was with Idris Elba. In the scene he punched me in the stomach which was great fun. He's really lovely, and I think it was quite surreal," said O'Riordan.

"We did a few practises and he was like making jokes and things so it was really funny.

Seriously, this is sick, even if what's seen on the screen is simulated. It's not something to joke about even in cinematic terms, and that the BBC would make light of stuff like this is despicable.

And then, I also noticed this UK Guardian article written up after the box office results, where they try to make it sound like everything's hunky-dory despite the poor financial receipts:

So why then does everyone involved in this thing seem so cheerful? “Travis Knight and the entire cast and film-making team have delivered something truly special,” Amazon MGM’s Kevin Wilson gushed to Variety. “This opening is exactly the kind of critical first moment that validates our holistic distribution strategy – building awareness and engagement that will carry well beyond the theatrical window.”

Meanwhile, Knight has been talking up the possibility of sequels, after the movie appeared to introduce He-Man’s twin She-Ra in a mid-credits scene. “With every movie that I’ve ever made, I’ve always imagined where the characters go outside … the bounds of the movie,” Knight told TechRadar. “You want to tell a self-contained story, and I think we’ve done that with this movie, but there are things within the wider mythology that didn’t fit within that, and the She-Ra character was one of them.”

“Adora is also a character that carries a lot of weight with her,” he added. “A lot of people, myself included, love that character, so we wanted to give a little nod to where that could go if we were given the opportunity to tell more stories.” [...]

If weak box office no longer kills commercial movies, that may not be the worst thing ever – because Masters of the Universe actually has a bit too much going for it to be a complete dud. The existence of She-Ra really does give the project franchise potential and Knight’s film is enjoyable enough in a nostalgic sort of way. Is the idea that a modern blockbuster can survive on streaming, toys and audience goodwill alone really so terrible?

But even if all this is true, none of it magically turns a $54m opening against a $200m-plus budget into Top Gun: Maverick. A franchise still needs new fans, not just parents revisiting Eternia, and there’s little evidence just yet that Masters of the Universe has actually managed to find them.

So because they might want to spotlight She-Ra in a sequel, that justifies continuing on, despite the failure? Nope, sorry. If they have any intention of making such a sequel woke, that's why it's better, as noted before, if it all came to a halt. Mainly because all these movies based on toy merchandise have long gotten silly, and they really don't add up to escapist entertainment any more than art. I guess it's because the special effects have also long gotten tiresome, as I may have argued before, and that's why when I watch live action, I prefer dramas based on acting talent, or anything of the sort where special effects are kept to a minimum, and animation, again, makes an alternative for sci-fi with better potential. But again, Hollywood won't consider animation, and that's only bringing down variety and competition a lot more.

Veteran actor from X-Men films made offensive comments about Donald Trump and his residence

Warner Todd Huston at Breitbart says veteran actor Ian McKellan, who played Magneto in the live action X-Men films in the past quarter century, is the latest performer with comics-to-movie connections who's made offensive comments about the USA president:

Disney’s Marvel film star Sir Ian McKellen is boasting about fantasizing about destroying President Donald Trump’s home at his Mar-a-Lago resort during his scenes in the upcoming superhero blockbuster, Avengers: Doomsday.

McKellen will reprise his X-Men role as Magneto, the mutant with the power over metals, in the film set to be released in December. And in comments made in Rome, the 87-year-old actor said that directors Anthony and Joe Russo told him to envision something personal when he was wreaking havoc as Magneto, according to The Guardian.

McKellen told his audience that “they got me at one point to destroy New Jersey.”

The actor then rose from his chair onstage to give a dramatic recreation of his thoughts during the scene, and said that the Russos “told me to look more furious: make it look as if you hate what you’re destroying. So, I stood there and I shouted: ‘Mar-a-Lago!'”

And the filmmakers had no complaints? Well, they have indicated they're leftists, so I guess that explains something. This does not make me look forward to watching whatever new films they're producing any more than anything else, and it says quite a bit more about the actors who were part of the X-Men movies as well. The Marvel movieverse has been on the decline for the past several years, and this kind of PR is not going to improve fortunes by much either.

Rob Liefeld whines again

Popverse says dreadful artist Liefeld is complaining that he's not listed as a writer/artist in one of Marvel's latest archives for New Mutants:

Rob Liefeld has never been shy about his opinions on... er, anything, really. But for our purposes, he's never held back on his opinions over how the work he did at Marvel has been handled by the company. Take, for example, a recent expression of his frustration regarding his work on the '90s X-Men title The New Mutants, in which Liefeld introduced perhaps his most famous creations, Deadpool and Cable. According to the seminal artist and Image Comics co-founder, a new collection of said comics miscredits him egregiously.

Liefeld's thoughts came via a social media post made June 6, in conjunction with Marvel's advertisement for an upcoming comic book omnibus. Specifically, that omnibus is The New Mutants Volume 4, which as some fans brought to Liefeld's attention, only credits him as an artist.

"Yes," said Liefeld, "despite writing the best selling issues of New Mutants ever published I am not listed [as a writer]."

But wasn't Louise Simonson the writer at the time? The only issues where he appeared to have credit as writer - or perhaps more precisely, as plotter - were the last 3, issues 98-100, and even there, it wasn't alone. It was with Fabian Nicieza. And I also noticed, interestingly enough, that issues 92 and 97 had Bob Hall and Guang Yap, respectively, credited as artists, not Liefeld. So it sounds like Liefeld's once again trying to give tabloid news sites like Popverse more material they can exploit for trivial matters, and simultaneously, Liefeld's trying to pretend he's one of the finest artists around, even though he's not. Rather hiliariously, he even admits he only "wrote" the last 3 issues in 1983-91's New Mutants:

Thus began a series of posts in which Liefeld not only voiced his annoyance of the oversight, but reminded readers of the success of the comic book the omnibus collects.

"It was through my writing that issues #98-100 sold 2.2 million copies," Liefeld said in another post. "That is more than the entire year previous to my joining. New Mutants was selling 110.000 copies in a sea of X-books selling 350k and above."

No kidding. It sold that much with his otherwise awful art? Well, I do recall the P.T. Barnum phrase "a sucker is born every minute", but even so, if anybody actually bought stories where it's not clear he was the writer per se as Nicieza was, it's a terrible shame they had to help prolong the dreadful career of such a pretentious artist.

Finally, Liefeld stepped back from his own experience to point at other artists who've conveyed their exasperation not just with the comic book industry, but with Marvel itself.

"In closing, Marvel treats creators like shit," Liefeld concluded, "They always have. Jack Kirby sued them. For two decades. The estate wants to sweep it under the rug now that they settled, but it turned Jack’s stomach. Steve Ditko sued Marvel. They can’t help but create the magic makers like shit."

Oops, did he really say "create" instead of "treat"? And since when was Liefeld a "magic maker" with that awful art of his, where he couldn't draw feet, let alone consistent panels with coherent art? Liefeld, alas, appears to be pretty arrogant, and with that kind of approach, is it any wonder he's otherwise on the sidelines now? It's a real shame Marvel had to hire him to work on at least 2 comics in their unsuccessful Heroes Reborn "experiment", which was like a textbook example of how mainstream publishers aren't marketing and selling on merit. Liefeld's only making clear he doesn't think his sloppy, derivative art is an embarrassment to the whole concept of artmaking. Yet all these pretentious news sites see fit to lavish attention on him they likely wouldn't give to writers like Chuck Dixon, or even artists like Brandon Peterson and Kirby himself, who're more talented than Liefeld ever was back in the day.

All we learn from this is that Liefeld's got a pointless grudge against Marvel, proving they shouldn't have ever done business with him in the first place. And Image shouldn't have let him take part in the company's founding.

A new book about the art of Michael Turner features some for a most inappropriate miniseries he worked on, and 3 unsuitable contributors

In this IGN article on Yahoo, it's announced that Aspen, the company originally founded by the late artist Michael Turner, worked on a crowdfunded art book featuring art he did for DC, and wouldn't you know it, one that includes some embarrassments based on what they were used for:

The late Michael Turner was undoubtedly one of the most popular comic book artists of the 2000s, with a proven track record of driving up sales on a series every time his art adorned the cover. Clover Press previously celebrated Turner's Marvel resume with The Marvel Art of Michael Turner, and now they're back with The DC Art of Michael Turner.

[...] The DC Art of Michael Turner is a 200-page 9" x 12" hardcover that reprints the artist's work on titles like Superman/Batman, The Flash, Justice League, Identity Crisis. The book includes an introduction by Ghost Machine editor-in-chief and former DC Comics Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns, as well as commentary from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer, and Dan DiDio.

Turner may have been a talented artist, and some of his contributions to Image's Top Cow affiliate years ago were impressive, but what he drew for DC was all-style-no-substance, and that he would actually draw covers for Identity Crisis was disgusting and an embarrassing stain on his portfolio. I remember when Alex Ross told how he'd been asked to draw artwork for the vile miniseries that was offensive to victims of sexual assault, and in contrast to Turner, Ross wisely refused the offer. How is it Ross understood a story with a belittling structure could tarnish his resume if he'd participated, but Turner couldn't? And how come a site like Get Your Comic On is also obscuring the topics involved by putting one of the illustrations Turner did for Identity Crisis at the top of their article? Also, lest we forget, that Meltzer, Johns and DiDio gave introduction commentary for this project is also bad news. As for Loeb, his writing from the times was hardly a big deal.

What makes this additionally troubling is when a "feminist" site like Girl Talk HQ glosses over some art connected with one of the most repulsive miniseries of 2004:

In celebration of the Kickstarter campaign launch today, we are sharing some exclusive images from ‘THE DC ART OF MICHAEL TURNER’ – the artist’s iconic interpretations of Wonder Woman, which you won’t find on any other media publication!

One of those panels they highlight is a cover Turner drew for Identity Crisis, an issue where WW was made to look absurdly mechanical in-story, showing her using her lasso on an interrogated crook without actually showing her face, IIRC. That doesn't trouble them? I guess that says all you need to know about how some feminists aren't the responsible folks they'd like everybody to think they are. Oddly enough, another feminist/SJW writing for Book Riot actually woke up and recognized what was wrong with Identity Crisis 15 years afterwards, though she dampened the impact of her essay by continuing to embrace other forms of wokeness, IIRC. When will the writers for this other feminist site begin to wake up?

Comic Book Club Live also glossed over the news, and they say:

Like other volumes in The DC Art Of… line, the high-end edition will come in a 9″ x 12″ deluxe hardcover, featuring over 200 pages of art and commentary. The campaign will also feature an ashcan, a “sketchbook” edition featuring black and white art, “a Kickstarter-exclusive slipcase and dust jacket, and multiple DC Portfolio sets spotlighting Turner’s unforgettable takes on Wonder Woman, Superman, Batman, and The Flash.” In addition, Geoff Johns has provided an introduction alongside “thoughts” from Jeph Loeb, Brad Meltzer and Dan Didio. Hopefully those thoughts will come in thought bubbles, but probably not.

And that says all you need to know where they stand regarding those charlatans too. Almost a decade after the Harvey Weinstein scandal, and they're continuing to sugarcoat some of the worst stories to bring down DC/Marvel over the past quarter century. That doesn't speak well for alleged "fandom".

Turner may have some decent artwork to build an art book with, but Identity Crisis taints the covers he foolishly drew for that. I would not advise backing the crowdfunding campaign for this financially, and when it comes to his DC artwork, I don't think it amounted to much in the end. Though if it matters, it was reprehensible when DC reprinted the Superman/Batman story reintroducing Supergirl in an anthology with censored panels for the girls' rear ends, yet violence against Lois Lane went by without any opposition. This was when DiDio was still in charge, and that too says quite a bit about his MO. So why is Aspen welcoming him to provide commentary for their new art book project? He's just one more reason why not to give the book any financial backing, because what if some of the profits go into his pockets? So I'm sorry, but I would strongly advise anybody who's a realist not to give this book about Turner's DC art any money.

Turner may have been a talented artist, I won't deny that. But again, he made some very sad mistakes that make it necessary to separate art from artist and/or take it with a grain of salt when it comes to his own portfolio.

What Polygon says about MTG cards based on Marvel illustrations

Polygon wrote a fluff-coated article about several cards from a new Magic: The Gathering collaboration with Marvel, and they sugarcoated at least a few things involving history, past and present. First, what's said about Contest of Champions:

Nowadays, Marvel Comics launches a new big event every year that’s all about stacking as many characters together as possible and seeing what happens. Well, it all started here. Marvel Super Hero Contest of Champions is Marvel Comics’ first-ever limited series. Published from June to August 1982, it was written by Mark Gruenwald and penciled by John Romita Jr. It introduced the concept of crossovers, events involving characters from different comic books, getting together to face a big crisis that usually has an impact on the entire Marvel continuity.

Mark Gruenwald was an ante-litteram visionary. (Just check out his Squadron Supreme run: it was one of the first politically charged big superhero comics, before that became a cool thing to do.) Contest of Champions planted the seed of what would become a standard practice for the House of Ideas, and while that series is less ambitious than Crisis on Infinite Earths, it predates DC Comics’ famous crossover event by three years.

So that's a good thing these comics were "politically charged"? And that crossovers crowded out creativity? Wow, the writer here certainly isn't approaching this from an objective viewpoint, despite any suggestions to the contrary. Contest of Champions may have been one of the first limited series they published (years later, these would be more likely to be described as miniseries), but that doesn't make it one of the best. Nor is it truly a good thing we had to see Marvel/DC destroyed creatively by only so many crossovers that came about since. What does the writer even mean by "less ambitious"? Does that mean it didn't go far enough as Crisis did by killing at least a few characters like Supergirl and 2nd Flash Barry Allen? If that's what he means, that's quite tasteless, and the worst part is that years later, Marvel did go the killing route in some way or other with a number of characters, and in cases like Scarlet Witch's, subjected her to a fate worse than death in Advengers: Disassembled. Also vital to note is that around the turn of the century, that's when keeping consistent with continuity and decent characterization began to deteriorate more than ever before in the mainstream, and it's had a disastrous effect on storytelling cohesion ever since. Now, here's something even more unworthy of a MTG card:

This is more a personal favorite than one of the all-time greats, perhaps, but it’s still a milestone in Iron Man continuity. Written by Warren Ellis with art by Adi Granov, “Extremis” is a six-issue story arc that ran in Iron Man between 2005 and 2006. It introduces the Extremis virus (also featured in the movie Iron Man 3), which upgrades Tony Stark with real superpowers, allowing him to connect to his armor and other machines through a neural interface. Extremis is perhaps the last interesting Iron Man story published (except for the magnificent miniseries Infamous Iron Man, where Doctor Doom takes the mantle of Iron Man). It transformed Tony Stark from “former alcoholic rich guy in a suit” into his modern image of a futurist, before that term was spoiled by creepy technocrats.

Seriously, I can't see what's so appealing about Ellis' writing that he has to have his story become the subject of a trading card. Also note how the columnist sugarcoats one of the modern stories where the hero's replaced by a villain in the armor, or costume. As though it weren't bad enough Spider-Man had to be mind-switched with Dr. Octopus. And doesn't giving Tony actual superpowers contradict and defeat how he was first created, as a guy whose power was the armor suits he built? That was the emphasis for many years, and coming when these "real" powers did, it was just too late to work out anyway. So why does this tale of all things need a MTG card? And then, there's Infinity Gauntlet:

Thanos and his infamous Snap in Avengers: Infinity War became the most iconic moment of the golden age of MCU movies. 27 years before Josh Brolin “blipped” half of the universe away, Jim Starlin wrote one of the most important sagas in Marvel history, bringing back the character he created two decades prior. The six-issue limited series The Infinity Gauntlet shows the outcome of Thanos’s quest to collect the Infinity Gems (shown in The Thanos Quest). The Mad Titan has obtained absolute power over creation, but will it be enough to please his cold mistress, Lady Death?

Before Hollywood success went to his head (and ruined his comic book characterizations), Thanos was one of the most fascinating Marvel characters, a villain fueled by philosophical musings and unrequited love more than lust for power or conquest. This is Starlin’s Thanos at his best, and the incredible art by George Pérez and Ron Lim brings to life an apocalyptic tale unfolding at the edge of the universe, where gods are brought to heel and a Mad Titan finally gets his wish.

I think even this crossover can be subject to some objective viewpoints. The Infinity minis may not have had as many crossover connections as others did, but IIRC, they still had some nonetheless, and that was simply appalling, because it was entirely unnecessary in order to make it a story worth reading. That said, interesting that here, the writer actually admits Thanos' characterization was ruined later on, though it'd be a lot better if somebody commenting on these topics gave more attention to heroes who underwent the same. And then, Secret Wars gets fluff-coated:

If Contest of Champions opened the door for crossovers, Secret Wars smashed those doors down. Conceived as a big marketing gambit that would tie in with a Mattel toy line and an RPG from TSR, this massive 1984-1985 event spanned over 12 issues of the main limited series and more than two dozen crossover issues of ongoing series. Written by Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Jim Shooter, with art by Mike Zeck, Bob Layton, and John Beatty, the series sees a host of heroes and villains transported to a mysterious planet dubbed Battleworld by an omnipotent entity known as the Beyonder, and forced into an all-out battle for survival.

In one of the most iconic moments in the series, the villain Molecule Man drops an entire mountain range (yup) on the heroes’ heads. The good guys barely survive in a wedge dug by Iron Man and Hulk, but the Green Goliath is carrying the entire weight of the mountains on his shoulders. To buy enough time to build a contraption to escape, Reed Richards insults Hulk since getting angrier makes him even stronger. Who else could have come up with this plan if not Marvel’s number one a-hole? It’s a pretty amazing moment and still one of Hulk’s greatest feats of strength.

That still doesn't justify the way Secret Wars was produced, as something where almost every Marvel title had to reference this story according to editorial mandate. Granted, unlike Crisis on Infinite Earths, it wasn't written for the sake of killing off any characters the editors considerd expendable, as DC did with Silver Age Supergirl. But it still has responsibility to shoulder for leading later to the disaster we see in the mainstream today, one that nobody writing these puff pieces has any intention of arguing against. And then, what does the writer say about one of Stan Lee's last creations:

Speaking of artists who loved to push the envelope, John Byrne’s run on Sensational She-Hulk in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s marked one of the few truly avant-garde moments in Marvel Comics history. Byrne took a minor character in the House of Ideas’ roster and turned it into a fourth-wall-breaking sensation. Towering over the series’ covers with a dominating, ultra-sexualized physicality, Jen Walters was threatening readers to rip up their X-Men collection if they didn’t buy her book, and openly mocking comics’ narrative tropes.

There’s no point in denying that the sexist tinges of Jen’s representation in the series were targeted at an audience of hormone-fueled, adolescent boys, but Byrne was still able to turn a relatively obscure character into one of the few culturally relevant women in Marvel Comics, at least for a while. It’s very cool that Magic’s homage to that historic run shows She-Hulk literally breaking the fourth wall.

Fascinating how the writer seems to be speaking with a forked tongue in regards to sexuality, though Byrne did have very questionable moments in his resume, including the time when he wrote a Superman story where Big Barda fell under the mind control of an alien from Apokalips named Sleez, who also brought Supes to heel, and then took them to a snuff filmmaker so he could film them engaging in sex?!? And you thought this kind of stuff was just relegated to fanfiction! That said, I think what the writer's telling about how Byrne handled Jen Walters is hypocritical, and certainly exploits it for the sake of pushing sex-negative visions simultaneously. At least the She-Hulk series Byrne launched during 1989-94 is more worthy of a MTG card than some of the above examples.

Anyway, this would've been a lot more charming news if it hadn't been for some of the more modern choices made like an Ellis story, and if it hadn't been for the realization the MTG franchise was subject to wokeification in the past decade. Who knows if they've reversed course since then? If not, that also dampens the interest.